The same holds good of his views about marriage and woman. In the problem of s.e.xual relations he distinctly sides with the woman from deep conviction. There is a great deal of tenderness and delicate feeling in his conception of the position of the girl and the woman. Few characters of the _Colloquies_ have been drawn with so much sympathy as the girl with the lover and the cultured woman in the witty conversation with the abbot. Erasmus"s ideal of marriage is truly social and hygienic. Let us beget children for the State and for Christ, says the lover, children endowed by their upright parents with a good disposition, children who see the good example at home which is to guide them. Again and again he reverts to the mother"s duty to suckle the child herself. He indicates how the house should be arranged, in a simple and cleanly manner; he occupies himself with the problem of useful children"s dress. Who stood up at that time, as he did, for the fallen girl, and for the prost.i.tute compelled by necessity? Who saw so clearly the social danger of marriages of persons infected with the new scourge of Europe, so violently abhorred by Erasmus? He would wish that such a marriage should at once be declared null and void by the Pope. Erasmus does not hold with the easy social theory, still quite current in the literature of his time, which casts upon women all the blame of adultery and lewdness.
With the savages who live in a state of nature, he says, the adultery of men is punished, but that of women is forgiven.
Here it appears, at the same time, that Erasmus knew, be it half in jest, the conception of natural virtue and happiness of naked islanders in a savage state. It soon crops up again in Montaigne and the following centuries develop it into a literary dogma.
CHAPTER XIII
ERASMUS"S MIND-CONTINUED
Erasmus"s mind: Intellectual tendencies--The world enc.u.mbered by beliefs and forms--Truth must be simple--Back to the pure sources--Holy Scripture in the original languages--Biblical humanism--Critical work on the texts of Scripture--Practice better than dogma--Erasmus"s talent and wit--Delight in words and things--Prolixity--Observation of details--A veiled realism--Ambiguousness--The "Nuance"--Inscrutability of the ultimate ground of all things
Simplicity, naturalness, purity, and reasonableness, those are to Erasmus the dominant requirements, also when we pa.s.s from his ethical and aesthetic concepts to his intellectual point of view; indeed, the two can hardly be kept apart.
The world, says Erasmus, is overloaded with human const.i.tutions and opinions and scholastic dogmas, and overburdened with the tyrannical authority of orders, and because of all this the strength of gospel doctrine is flagging. Faith requires simplification, he argued. What would the Turks say of our scholasticism? Colet wrote to him one day: "There is no end to books and science. Let us, therefore, leave all roundabout roads and go by a short cut to the truth."
Truth must be simple. "The language of truth is simple, says Seneca; well then, nothing is simpler nor truer than Christ." "I should wish", Erasmus says elsewhere, "that this simple and pure Christ might be deeply impressed upon the mind of men, and that I deem best attainable in this way, that we, supported by our knowledge of the original languages, should philosophize _at the sources_ themselves."
Here a new watchword comes to the fore: back to the sources! It is not merely an intellectual, philological requirement; it is equally an ethical and aesthetic necessity of life. The original and pure, all that is not yet overgrown or has not pa.s.sed through many hands, has such a potent charm. Erasmus compared it to an apple which we ourselves pick off the tree. To recall the world to the ancient simplicity of science, to lead it back from the now turbid pools to those living and most pure fountain-heads, those most limpid sources of gospel doctrine--thus he saw the task of divinity. The metaphor of the limpid water is not without meaning here; it reveals the psychological quality of Erasmus"s fervent principle.
"How is it", he exclaims, "that people give themselves so much trouble about the details of all sorts of remote philosophical systems and neglect to go to the sources of Christianity itself?" "Although this wisdom, which is so excellent that once for all it put the wisdom of all the world to shame, may be drawn from these few books, as from a crystalline source, with far less trouble than is the wisdom of Aristotle from so many th.o.r.n.y books and with much more fruit.... The equipment for that journey is simple and at everyone"s immediate disposal. This philosophy is accessible to everybody. Christ desires that his mysteries shall be spread as widely as possible. I should wish that all good wives read the Gospel and Paul"s Epistles; that they were translated into all languages; that out of these the husbandman sang while ploughing, the weaver at his loom; that with such stories the traveller should beguile his wayfaring.... This sort of philosophy is rather a matter of disposition than of syllogisms, rather of life than of disputation, rather of inspiration than of erudition, rather of transformation than of logic.... What is the philosophy of Christ, which he himself calls _Renascentia_, but the insaturation of Nature created good?--moreover, though no one has taught us this so absolutely and effectively as Christ, yet also in pagan books much may be found that is in accordance with it."
Such was the view of life of this biblical humanist. As often as Erasmus reverts to these matters, his voice sounds clearest. "Let no one", he says in the preface to the notes to the New Testament, "take up this work, as he takes up Gellius"s _Noctes atticae_ or Poliziano"s Miscellanies.... We are in the presence of holy things; here it is no question of eloquence, these matters are best recommended to the world by simplicity and purity; it would be ridiculous to display human erudition here, impious to pride oneself on human eloquence." But Erasmus never was so eloquent himself as just then.
What here raises him above his usual level of force and fervour is the fact that he fights a battle, the battle for the right of biblical criticism. It revolts him that people should study Holy Scripture in the Vulgate when they know that the texts show differences and are corrupt, although we have the Greek text by which to go back to the original form and primary meaning.
He is now reproached because he dares, as a mere grammarian, to a.s.sail the text of Holy Scripture on the score of futile mistakes or irregularities. "Details they are, yes, but because of these details we sometimes see even great divines stumble and rave." Philological trifling is necessary. "Why are we so precise as to our food, our clothes, our money-matters and why does this accuracy displease us in divine literature alone? He crawls along the ground, they say, he wearies himself out about words and syllables! Why do we slight any word of Him whom we venerate and worship under the name of the Word? But, be it so! Let whoever wishes imagine that I have not been able to achieve anything better, and out of sluggishness of mind and coldness of heart or lack of erudition have taken this lowest task upon myself; it is still a Christian idea to think all work good that is done with pious zeal. We bring along the bricks, but to build the temple of G.o.d."
He does not want to be intractable. Let the Vulgate be kept for use in the liturgy, for sermons, in schools, but he who, at home, reads our edition, will understand his own the better in consequence. He, Erasmus, is prepared to render account and acknowledge himself to have been wrong when convicted of error.
Erasmus perhaps never quite realized how much his philological-critical method must shake the foundations of the Church. He was surprised at his adversaries "who could not but believe that all their authority would perish at once when the sacred books might be read in a purified form, and when people tried to understand them in the original". He did not feel what the una.s.sailable authority of a sacred book meant. He rejoices because Holy Scripture is approached so much more closely, because all sorts of shadings are brought to light by considering not only what is said but also by whom, for whom, at what time, on what occasion, what precedes and what follows, in short, by the method of historical philological criticism. To him it seemed so especially pious when reading Scripture and coming across a place which seemed contrary to the doctrine of Christ or the divinity of his nature, to believe rather that one did not understand the phrase _or that the text might be corrupt_.
Unperceived he pa.s.sed from emendation of the different versions to the correction of the contents. The epistles were not all written by the apostles to whom they are attributed. The apostles themselves made mistakes, at times.
The foundation of his spiritual life was no longer a unity to Erasmus.
It was, on the one hand, a strong desire for an upright, simple, pure and homely belief, the earnest wish to be a good Christian. But it was also the irresistible intellectual and aesthetic need of the good taste, the harmony, the clear and exact expression of the Ancients, the dislike of what was c.u.mbrous and involved. Erasmus thought that good learning might render good service for the necessary purification of the faith and its forms. The measure of church hymns should be corrected. That Christian expression and cla.s.sicism were incompatible, he never believed. The man who in the sphere of sacred studies asked every author for his credentials remained unconscious of the fact that he acknowledged the authority of the Ancients without any evidence. How navely he appeals to Antiquity, again and again, to justify some bold feat! He is critical, they say? Were not the Ancients critical? He permits himself to insert digressions? So did the Ancients, etc.
Erasmus is in profound sympathy with that revered Antiquity by his fundamental conviction that it is the practice of life which matters.
Not he is the great philosopher who knows the tenets of the Stoics or Peripatetics by rote--but he who expresses the meaning of philosophy by his life and his morals, for that is its purpose. He is truly a divine who teaches, not by artful syllogisms, but by his disposition, by his face and his eyes, by his life itself, that wealth should be despised.
To live up to that standard is what Christ himself calls _Renascentia_.
Erasmus uses the word in the Christian sense only. But in that sense it is closely allied to the idea of the Renaissance as a historical phenomenon. The worldly and pagan sides of the Renaissance have nearly always been overrated. Erasmus is, much more than Aretino or Castiglione, the representative of the spirit of his age, one over whose Christian sentiment the sweet gale of Antiquity had pa.s.sed. And that very union of strong Christian endeavour and the spirit of Antiquity is the explanation of Erasmus"s wonderful success.
The mere intention and the contents of the mind do not influence the world, if the form of expression does not cooperate. In Erasmus the quality of his talent is a very important factor. His perfect clearness and ease of expression, his liveliness, wit, imagination, gusto and humour have lent a charm to all he wrote which to his contemporaries was irresistible and captivates even us, as soon as we read him. In all that const.i.tutes his talent, Erasmus is perfectly and altogether a representative of the Renaissance. There is, in the first place, his eternal _a propos_. What he writes is never vague, never dark--it is always plausible. Everything seemingly flows of itself like a fountain.
It always rings true as to tone, turn of phrase and accent. It has almost the light harmony of Ariosto. And it is, like Ariosto, never tragic, never truly heroic. It carries us away, indeed, but it is never itself truly enraptured.
The more artistic aspects of Erasmus"s talent come out most clearly--though they are everywhere in evidence--in those two recreations after more serious labour, the _Moriae Encomium_ and the _Colloquia_. But just those two have been of enormous importance for his influence upon his times. For while Jerome reached tens of readers and the New Testament hundreds, the _Moria_ and _Colloquies_ went out to thousands. And their importance is heightened in that Erasmus has nowhere else expressed himself so spontaneously.
In each of the Colloquies, even in the first purely formulary ones, there is the sketch for a comedy, a novelette or a satire. There is hardly a sentence without its "point", an expression without a vivid fancy. There are unrivalled niceties. The abbot of the _Abbatis et eruditae colloquium_ is a Moliere character. It should be noticed how well Erasmus always sustains his characters and his scenes, because he _sees_ them. In "The woman in childbed" he never forgets for a moment that Eutrapelus is an artist. At the end of "The game of knucklebones", when the interlocutors, after having elucidated the whole nomenclature of the Latin game of knuckle-bones, are going to play themselves, Carolus says: "but shut the door first, lest the cook should see us playing like two boys".
As Holbein ill.u.s.trated the _Moria_, we should wish to possess the _Colloquia_ with ill.u.s.trations by Brueghel, so closely allied is Erasmus"s witty clear vision of incidents to that of this great master.
The procession of drunkards on Palm Sunday, the saving of the shipwrecked crew, the old men waiting for the travelling cart while the drivers are still drinking, all these are Dutch genre pieces of the best sort.
We like to speak of the realism of the Renaissance. Erasmus is certainly a realist in the sense of having an insatiable hunger for knowledge of the tangible world. He wants to know things and their names: the particulars of each thing, be it never so remote, such as those terms of games and rules of games of the Romans. Read carefully the description of the decorative painting on the garden-house of the _Convivium religiosum_: it is nothing but an object lesson, a graphic representation of the forms of reality.
In its joy over the material universe and the supple, pliant word, the Renaissance revels in a profusion of imagery and expressions. The resounding enumerations of names and things, which Rabelais always gives, are not unknown to Erasmus, but he uses them for intellectual and useful purposes. In _De copia verborum ac rerum_ one feat of varied power of expression succeeds another--he gives fifty ways of saying: "Your letter has given me much pleasure," or, "I think that it is going to rain". The aesthetic impulse is here that of a theme and variations: to display all the wealth and mutations of the logic of language.
Elsewhere, too, Erasmus indulges this proclivity for acc.u.mulating the treasures of his genius; he and his contemporaries can never restrain themselves from giving all the instances instead of one: in _Ratio verae theologiae_, in _De p.r.o.nuntiatione_, in _Lingua_, in _Ecclesiastes_. The collections of _Adagia_, _Parabolae_, and _Apophthegmata_ are altogether based on this eagerness of the Renaissance (which, by the way, was an inheritance of the Middle Ages themselves) to luxuriate in the wealth of the tangible world, to revel in words and things.
The senses are open for the nice observation of the curious. Though Erasmus does not know that need of proving the secrets of nature, which inspired a Leonardo da Vinci, a Paracelsus, a Vesalius, he is also, by his keen observation, a child of his time. For peculiarities in the habits and customs of nations he has an open eye. He notices the gait of Swiss soldiers, how dandies sit, how Picards p.r.o.nounce French. He notices that in old pictures the sitters are always represented with half-closed eyes and tightly shut lips, as signs of modesty, and how some Spaniards still honour this expression in life, while German art prefers lips pouting as for a kiss. His lively sense of anecdote, to which he gives the rein in all his writings, belongs here.
And, in spite of all his realism, the world which Erasmus sees and renders, is not altogether that of the sixteenth century. Everything is veiled by Latin. Between the author"s mind and reality intervenes his antique diction. At bottom the world of his mind is imaginary. It is a subdued and limited sixteenth-century reality which he reflects.
Together with its coa.r.s.eness he lacks all that is violent and direct in his times. Compared with the artists, with Luther and Calvin, with the statesmen, the navigators, the soldiers and the scientists, Erasmus confronts the world as a recluse. It is only the influence of Latin. In spite of all his receptiveness and sensitiveness, Erasmus is never fully in contact with life. All through his work not a bird sings, not a wind rustles.
But that reserve or fear of directness is not merely a negative quality.
It also results from a consciousness of the indefiniteness of the ground of all things, from the awe of the ambiguity of all that is. If Erasmus so often hovers over the borderline between earnestness and mockery, if he hardly ever gives an incisive conclusion, it is not only due to cautiousness, and fear to commit himself. Everywhere he sees the shadings, the blending of the meaning of words. The terms of things are no longer to him, as to the man of the Middle Ages, as crystals mounted in gold, or as stars in the firmament. "I like a.s.sertions so little that I would easily take sides with the sceptics whereever it is allowed by the inviolable authority of Holy Scripture and the decrees of the Church." "What is exempt from error?" All subtle contentions of theological speculation arise from a dangerous curiosity and lead to impious audacity. What have all the great controversies about the Trinity and the Virgin Mary profited? "We have defined so much that without danger to our salvation might have remained unknown or undecided.... The essentials of our religion are peace and unanimity.
These can hardly exist unless we make definitions about as few points as possible and leave many questions to individual judgement. Numerous problems are now postponed till the oec.u.menical Council. It would be much better to put off such questions till the time when the gla.s.s shall be removed and the darkness cleared away, and we shall see G.o.d face to face."
"There are sanctuaries in the sacred studies which G.o.d has not willed that we should probe, and if we try to penetrate there, we grope in ever deeper darkness the farther we proceed, so that we recognize, in this manner, too, the inscrutable majesty of divine wisdom and the imbecility of human understanding."
CHAPTER XIV
ERASMUS"S CHARACTER
Erasmus"s character: Need of purity and cleanliness-- Delicacy--Dislike of contention, need of concord and friendship--Aversion to disturbance of any kind--Too much concerned about other men"s opinions--Need of self- justification--Himself never in the wrong--Correlation between inclinations and convictions--Ideal image of himself--Dissatisfaction with himself--Self-centredness--A solitary at heart--Fastidiousness--Suspiciousness--Morbid mistrust--Unhappiness--Restlessness--Unsolved contradictions of his being--Horror of lies--Reserve and insinuation
Erasmus"s powerful mind met with a great response in the heart of his contemporaries and had a lasting influence on the march of civilization.
But one of the heroes of history he cannot be called. Was not his failure to attain to still loftier heights partly due to the fact that his character was not on a level with the elevation of his mind?
And yet that character, a very complicated one, though he took himself to be the simplest man in the world, was determined by the same factors which determined the structure of his mind. Again and again we find in his inclinations the correlates of his convictions.
At the root of his moral being we find--a key to the understanding of his character--that same profound need of purity which drove him to the sources of sacred science. Purity in the material and the moral sense is what he desires for himself and others, always and in all things. Few things revolt him so much as the practices of vintners who doctor wine and dealers who adulterate food. If he continually chastens his language and style, or exculpates himself from mistakes, it is the same impulse which prompts his pa.s.sionate desire for cleanliness and brightness, of the home and of the body. He has a violent dislike of stuffy air and smelly substances. He regularly takes a roundabout way to avoid a malodorous lane; he loathes shambles and fishmongers" shops. Fetors spread infection, he thinks. Erasmus had, earlier than most people, antiseptic ideas about the danger of infection in the foul air of crowded inns, in the breath of confessants, in baptismal water. Throw aside common cups, he pleaded; let everybody shave himself, let us be cleanly as to bed-sheets, let us not kiss each other by way of greeting.
The fear of the horrible venereal disease, imported into Europe during his lifetime, and of which Erasmus watched the unbridled propagation with solicitude, increases his desire for purity. Too little is being done to stop it, he thinks. He cautions against suspected inns; he wants to have measures taken against the marriages of syphilitic persons. In his undignified att.i.tude towards Hutten his physical and moral aversion to the man"s evil plays an unmistakable part.
Erasmus is a delicate soul in all his fibres. His body forces him to be that. He is highly sensitive, among other things very susceptible to cold, "the scholars" disorder", as he calls it. Early in life already the painful malady of the stone begins to torment him, which he resisted so bravely when his work was at stake. He always speaks in a coddling tone about his little body, which cannot stand fasting, which must be kept fit by some exercise, namely riding, and for which he carefully tries to select a suitable climate. He is at times circ.u.mstantial in the description of his ailments.[15] He has to be very careful in the matter of his sleep; if once he wakes up, he finds it difficult to go to sleep again, and because of that has often to lose the morning, the best time to work and which is so dear to him. He cannot stand cold, wind and fog, but still less overheated rooms. How he has execrated the German stoves, which are burned nearly all the year through and made Germany almost unbearable to him! Of his fear of illness we have spoken above. It is not only the plague which he flees--for fear of catching cold he gives up a journey from Louvain to Antwerp, where his friend Peter Gilles is in mourning. Although he realizes quite well that "often a great deal of the disease is in the imagination", yet his own imagination leaves him no peace. Nevertheless, when he is seriously ill he does not fear death.
His hygienics amount to temperance, cleanliness and fresh air, this last item in moderation: he takes the vicinity of the sea to be unwholesome and is afraid of draughts. His friend Gilles, who is ill, he advises: "Do not take too much medicine, keep quiet and do not get angry". Though there is a "Praise of Medicine" among his works, he does not think highly of physicians and satirizes them more than once in the _Colloquies_.
Also in his outward appearance there were certain features betraying his delicacy. He was of medium height, well-made, of a fair complexion with blond hair and blue eyes, a cheerful face, a very articulate mode of speech, but a thin voice.
In the moral sphere Erasmus"s delicacy is represented by his great need of friendship and concord, his dislike of contention. With him peace and harmony rank above all other considerations, and he confesses them to be the guiding principles of his actions. He would, if it might be, have all the world as a friend. "Wittingly I discharge no one from my friendship," he says. And though he was sometimes capricious and exacting towards his friends, yet a truly great friend he was: witness the many who never forsook him, or whom he, after a temporary estrangement, always won back--More, Peter Gilles, Fisher, Ammonius, Budaeus, and others too numerous to mention. "He was most constant in keeping up friendships," says Beatus Rhena.n.u.s, whose own attachment to Erasmus is a proof of the strong affection he could inspire.
At the root of this desire of friendship lies a great and sincere need of affection. Remember the effusions of almost feminine affection towards Servatius during his monastic period. But at the same time it is a sort of moral serenity that makes him so: an aversion to disturbance, to whatever is harsh and inharmonious. He calls it "a certain occult natural sense" which makes him abhor strife. He cannot abide being at loggerheads with anyone. He always hoped and wanted, he says, to keep his pen unb.l.o.o.d.y, to attack no one, to provoke no one, even if he were attacked. But his enemies had not willed it, and in later years he became well accustomed to bitter polemics, with Lefevre d"etaples, with Lee, with Egmonda.n.u.s, with Hutten, with Luther, with Beda, with the Spaniards, and the Italians. At first it is still noticeable how he suffers by it, how contention wounds him, so that he cannot bear the pain in silence. "Do let us be friends again," he begs Lefevre, who does not reply. The time which he had to devote to his polemics he regards as lost. "I feel myself getting more heavy every day," he writes in 1520, "not so much on account of my age as because of the restless labour of my studies, nay more even by the weariness of disputes than by the work, which, in itself, is agreeable." And how much strife was still in store for him then!